The Crush with Lee and Tiffany Lease in Alberta

[41thunder]

Originally Posted by calvin

First off, the 2nd paragraph is a crap comment and very demeaning.
2nd, I watched this program a few weeks ago and listened carefully as they said that land has been leased and management of the mule deer were the focus. Nothing was said as to the object of lease. Was it land to run livestock or just to take pretty pictures. No, it was said that the management of the local herd of mule deer was the focus. In my opinion this is a paid access issue. Needs to be investigated. I made a call today to a person to voice my concern of this. There needs to be a product or service involved to make a lease of land or equipment viable. This is a blatant exchange of money for access to private property to hunt public animals. Lee and Tiffany need to be investigated and this issue resolved.

Ok Karen

[41thunder]

Originally Posted by dshaw

As far as I know nothing illegal is taking place. But I could wrong on something. They are hunting the Deseret Ranches/knight Ranch in 108 and I believe in 130. The Deseret Ranch has 2 allocations in 108 and 4 in 130 I believe. The 2 allocations in 108 (where Lee killed his deer) are owned by the Deseret ranch and the outfitter/ranch boss runs the hunts on this land nearly all the time even though the tags would be good anywhere in 108. That said, there is no trespassing or hunting on the Deseret Ranches other than these allocations for these zones. There are thousands of deer on thousands of acres here. Herd management is pretty easy to do when you have that and only 2 tags. Maybe shoot the giant fork horns and 3 points instead of the 200 inchers every year so some herd management. There will always be 2 Americans (Canadians This year) That will come and use the 2 tags in 108 and 4 in 130. Lee and Tiffany will just come every year and "pay" for a guided hunt just like any other American could do year after year. Now there are other allocations in both zones with another outfitter and i'm not sure if they leased them to Deseret last year for all those hunters (lee, blake Shelton, ect.) to allow them to hunt the ranch as well. I don't know the rules that well to say if anything illegal is going on or not. I think they just mis-used words and phrases to spice up their show and forgot they were in Canada not the USA. Please clarify anything I might have said. I don't know all the rules other than this is how its always been since I can remember and grew up here seeing. I would love to know the ins and outs of it all.

I would be on this being the case here

[Kurt505]

Originally Posted by 41thunder

Ok Karen

Well I never watched the episode, and I don’t know the laws, but that’s funny

[calvin]

Originally Posted by 41thunder

Ok Karen

Whatever Boomer!!

[H380]

Originally Posted by DRhunter

Sorry that is incorrect, it is one licence per title, not per quarter.



From the 2020 draw booklet:

"There is a limit of one Landowner Special Licence application per Certificate of Title (or current Tax Notice). NOTE: If a person can qualify under

more than one circumstance described in items 3, 4 or 5 below, they may apply only for one of these three kinds of properties.

3. For lands that are not corporate owned, the applicant must own (have title to or have under agreement for sale by the Crown) a minimum of 1/4 section in a single parcel of 160 acres, consideration for road allowance or utility corridor given, or be an eligible person to whom the titleholder transfers this application opportunity. A title holder may transfer this application opportunity only to an individual who is directly involved in farming the land. This person might be a family member or employee of the person who farms the land, provided, in all cases, that the individual is directly involved in the day-to-day farming operations on the land.

4. In the case of land held under title by a business corporation of the above size category, the applicant may be a shareholder of the business. Similar to item 3 above, an individual who is directly involved in farming this land may apply if the application opportunity has been transferred to them by a person who is authorized to do so by the corporation.

5. In the case of joint land titles, only one of the joint title holders may submit an application for a Landowner Special Licence under a Certificate of Title (or current Tax Notice). However, if additional joint titles exist, each individual, if eligible, may apply under separate joint titles. The same rules apply to transferees as noted above.



DR

Finally a guy that understands the landowner system ..thank you .

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

[H380]

dshaw has it all prettt well summed up and i believe is correct in his comments ..th3 only management the Lakoskys are ginna do is manage to het the biggest deer they can have tied up for them ..as for lease ? The land they are hunting on is the same " lease" that Chuck Adams hunted for years .Ive heard stories about Blake Sheltons hunt on the 130 property and if true could land a number of folks on hot water ...same outfitter ...oh by the way Tom Mcmillan of the show " Mcmillan " took a dandy mule on the Lakoskys " lease" last year as well .

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

[dustinjoels]

Originally Posted by dshaw

As far as I know nothing illegal is taking place. But I could wrong on something. They are hunting the Deseret Ranches/knight Ranch in 108 and I believe in 130. The Deseret Ranch has 2 allocations in 108 and 4 in 130 I believe. The 2 allocations in 108 (where Lee killed his deer) are owned by the Deseret ranch and the outfitter/ranch boss runs the hunts on this land nearly all the time even though the tags would be good anywhere in 108. That said, there is no trespassing or hunting on the Deseret Ranches other than these allocations for these zones. There are thousands of deer on thousands of acres here. Herd management is pretty easy to do when you have that and only 2 tags. Maybe shoot the giant fork horns and 3 points instead of the 200 inchers every year so some herd management. There will always be 2 Americans (Canadians This year) That will come and use the 2 tags in 108 and 4 in 130. Lee and Tiffany will just come every year and "pay" for a guided hunt just like any other American could do year after year. Now there are other allocations in both zones with another outfitter and i'm not sure if they leased them to Deseret last year for all those hunters (lee, blake Shelton, ect.) to allow them to hunt the ranch as well. I don't know the rules that well to say if anything illegal is going on or not. I think they just mis-used words and phrases to spice up their show and forgot they were in Canada not the USA. Please clarify anything I might have said. I don't know all the rules other than this is how its always been since I can remember and grew up here seeing. I would love to know the ins and outs of it all.

This explanation makes the most sense. It was indeed just the words/phrases used on the show that confused me. And those words/phrases they used are most likely incorrect.

[dshaw]

Originally Posted by H380

dshaw has it all prettt well summed up and i believe is correct in his comments ..th3 only management the Lakoskys are ginna do is manage to het the biggest deer they can have tied up for them ..as for lease ? The land they are hunting on is the same " lease" that Chuck Adams hunted for years .Ive heard stories about Blake Sheltons hunt on the 130 property and if true could land a number of folks on hot water ...same outfitter ...oh by the way Tom Mcmillan of the show " Mcmillan " took a dandy mule on the Lakoskys " lease" last year as well .

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Haven't heard the whole story yet on Blakes deer. interesting though

[TrapperMike]

Drhunter. If you look at #5 in you explanation you will see that they point out that if the quarter has joint ownership that only one can apply for a landowner permit. But, if these joint owners have numerous quarters the other owners can apply for landowner permits on the other quarters. Only one permit per quarter.

[oldmaster]

its long overdue alberta revamp its guide system.....switch to the sask system the only place americans can hunt is north of lloydmister and for only whitetail nothing else. In alberta we could go north of peace river and just for whitetails why should normal albertian wait 5-10 years for tags while a handful of guides get rich off alberta's wildlife.

[leaffan]

if the land that is located in 130 is located near Taber it has been off limits for almost 10 years. I believe it is owned by the Mormon Church and area wise is approximately 4.5 sections most of which is irrigated crop land near the river.There are definately some huge mule deer that live there

[dshaw]

Originally Posted by leaffan

if the land that is located in 130 is located near Taber it has been off limits for almost 10 years. I believe it is owned by the Mormon Church and area wise is approximately 4.5 sections most of which is irrigated crop land near the river.There are definately some huge mule deer that live there

Yes thats the same church group that will own it in 130 and 108 as well.

[Torkdiesel]

Originally Posted by oldmaster

a handful of guides get rich off alberta's wildlife


.

Hahahahahahaha

You win for today lol

[35 whelen]

Originally Posted by oldmaster

its long overdue alberta revamp its guide system.....switch to the sask system the only place americans can hunt is north of lloydmister and for only whitetail nothing else. In alberta we could go north of peace river and just for whitetails why should normal albertian wait 5-10 years for tags while a handful of guides get rich off alberta's wildlife.

Other than Guides and Outfitters getting rich ,i do agree with the rest of this post ,TIME FOR A CHANGE ,

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by 41thunder

Who says that anything illegal is taking place?
Why would a farmer in Alberta, not be able to relate with a farmer from Iowa or wherever they are from? And give an outfitter permission for them to hunt On his property?
I bet the farmer doesn’t mind a hot little blonde coming over to visit for a week or so every year.
I would also bet that he would rather have the blonde at his place instead of some yahoo who likes to eat coyotes

Karen,

You tell me who says.
I didn't.
Same for the other questions.
You're the first to ask them. Keep rolling, answer yourself.

Re' the blonde. Why would you even go there?
You sound lonely.

[raab]

Originally Posted by 35 whelen

Other than Guides and Outfitters getting rich ,i do agree with the rest of this post ,TIME FOR A CHANGE ,

I agree as well, the current system for certifying guides is broken.

[41thunder]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Karen,

You tell me who says.
I didn't.
Same for the other questions.
You're the first to ask them. Keep rolling, answer yourself.

Re' the blonde. Why would you even go there?
You sound lonely.

What are you talking about?
Yours your words Karen #2

[calvin]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Karen,

You tell me who says.
I didn't.
Same for the other questions.
You're the first to ask them. Keep rolling, answer yourself.

Re' the blonde. Why would you even go there?
You sound lonely.

The basic premise that most every person has missed on this post is the simple premise that if this issue is left uninterrupted, it sets a precedent that any land is available for ‘lease’. This is not a guide getting rich scheme. It’s a blatant trampelling of hunting legality in this province. It would mean that every parcel of land is available for rent. Why should outfitter tags be any different. These tags are meant for sportsmen as it currently is right now, to obtain the tag and come here to hunt. Plain and simple. There has to be a basic service provided other than selling the tag. If the ranch owns the tag and sells or provides it in exchange for money and access. That in my opinion is paid access and therefore as it is right now, blatantly illegal in my opinion. This issue needs investigation and if those 2 folks are doing everything legal, then good on them.

[35 whelen]

Originally Posted by calvin

The basic premise that most every person has missed on this post is the simple premise that if this issue is left uninterrupted, it sets a precedent that any land is available for ‘lease’. This is not a guide getting rich scheme. It’s a blatant trampelling of hunting legality in this province. It would mean that every parcel of land is available for rent. Why should outfitter tags be any different. These tags are meant for sportsmen as it currently is right now, to obtain the tag and come here to hunt. Plain and simple. There has to be a basic service provided other than selling the tag. If the ranch owns the tag and sells or provides it in exchange for money and access. That in my opinion is paid access and therefore as it is right now, blatantly illegal in my opinion. This issue needs investigation and if those 2 folks are doing everything legal, then good on them.

Has anyone reported this to anyone

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[WinefredCommander]

Originally Posted by 35 whelen

Has anyone reported this to anyone

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Oh F&W know. They’re just building an iron clad case. This needs to stop. Same lease I believe Brock Lesner broke the rules on. Hey at least this year no Americans are getting up!

[41thunder]

Originally Posted by calvin

The basic premise that most every person has missed on this post is the simple premise that if this issue is left uninterrupted, it sets a precedent that any land is available for ‘lease’. This is not a guide getting rich scheme. It’s a blatant trampelling of hunting legality in this province. It would mean that every parcel of land is available for rent. Why should outfitter tags be any different. These tags are meant for sportsmen as it currently is right now, to obtain the tag and come here to hunt. Plain and simple. There has to be a basic service provided other than selling the tag. If the ranch owns the tag and sells or provides it in exchange for money and access. That in my opinion is paid access and therefore as it is right now, blatantly illegal in my opinion. This issue needs investigation and if those 2 folks are doing everything legal, then good on them.

This is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard
So your saying landowners can’t be outfitters
And outfitters can’t own land because it would be a conflict of interest
Give your head a shake
What gives anyone the right to tell people who they can allow to access their land
Hunting or anything else

If you haven’t realize by the time you have become an adult that money talks
I don’t know what planet you were raised on
Everyone does not deserve equal access and opportunities
You charge these landowners and **** them off
They and their friends will lock down their land to everyone

[leaffan]

In 130 this parcel of 4.5 to 5 sections has already been locked down except to the outfitters

[35 whelen]

Originally Posted by 41thunder

This is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard

So your saying landowners can’t be outfitters

And outfitters can’t own land because it would be a conflict of interest

Give your head a shake

What gives anyone the right to tell people who they can allow to access their land

Hunting or anything else



If you haven’t realize by the time you have become an adult that money talks

I don’t know what planet you were raised on

Everyone does not deserve equal access and opportunities

You charge these landowners and **** them off

They and their friends will lock down their land to everyone

Everyone that lives in Alberta should have access before Americans coming up in Booking it however they are doing it illegal are legally, I worked for Outfitters that had them up there. Saying they're not nice people but they bring up trail cameras treestands all kinds of goodies that usually get left there rifles for the guides are the Outfitter landowners if they're doing this and legally yes it should be stopped if not go ahead

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[35 whelen]

Originally Posted by 41thunder

This is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard

So your saying landowners can’t be outfitters

And outfitters can’t own land because it would be a conflict of interest

Give your head a shake

What gives anyone the right to tell people who they can allow to access their land

Hunting or anything else



If you haven’t realize by the time you have become an adult that money talks

I don’t know what planet you were raised on

Everyone does not deserve equal access and opportunities

You charge these landowners and **** them off

They and their friends will lock down their land to everyone

And landowners can't be Outfitters unless their insured bonded and go through APos

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[calvin]

Originally Posted by 41thunder

This is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard
So your saying landowners can’t be outfitters
And outfitters can’t own land because it would be a conflict of interest
Give your head a shake
What gives anyone the right to tell people who they can allow to access their land
Hunting or anything else

If you haven’t realize by the time you have become an adult that money talks
I don’t know what planet you were raised on
Everyone does not deserve equal access and opportunities
You charge these landowners and **** them off
They and their friends will lock down their land to everyone

You’re not making any sense. Lay off the devils lettuce buddy. Landowners can be outfitters. No issue there. But they in my opinion cannot own tags and lease the property as it is illegal to provide access for payment. This issue if left unchecked leads to a very detrimental precedent in our hunting access opportunities. I fully understand your thoughts on property rights, but look up hunting access for sale in Alberta and educate yourself. Your argument has zero basis. If these 2 people can blatantly tell the viewing public that they’re leasing land to hunt and raise deer on, that in my opinion needs to be looked into. Your arguement is faulty.
Furthermore, in Alberta, everyone does deserve equal access and opportunity. In this case, this property is locked down and access is denied to everyone other than this crew.

[calvin]

Originally Posted by 35 whelen

Has anyone reported this to anyone

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Yes it has.

[calvin]

[QUOTE=WinefredCommander;4241404]Oh F&W know. They’re just building an iron clad case. This needs to stop. Same lease I believe Brock Lesner broke the rules on. Hey at least this year no Americans are getting up![/QUOTE

This has zero to do with brock lesnar. Be more informed please.

[Rackmastr]

Originally Posted by calvin

In this case, this property is locked down and access is denied to everyone other than this crew.

Well, they do allow elk hunting thankfully (or have for a long time if they dont anymore). Sure would be a shame if that opportunity didn't exist anymore.

[41thunder]

Originally Posted by calvin

You’re not making any sense. Lay off the devils lettuce buddy. Landowners can be outfitters. No issue there. But they in my opinion cannot own tags and lease the property as it is illegal to provide access for payment. This issue if left unchecked leads to a very detrimental precedent in our hunting access opportunities. I fully understand your thoughts on property rights, but look up hunting access for sale in Alberta and educate yourself. Your argument has zero basis. If these 2 people can blatantly tell the viewing public that they’re leasing land to hunt and raise deer on, that in my opinion needs to be looked into. Your arguement is faulty.
Furthermore, in Alberta, everyone does deserve equal access and opportunity. In this case, this property is locked down and access is denied to everyone other than this crew.

How hard is it to realize that the term lease is used different on the other side of the border
Do you believe everything you read online word for word also?

[41thunder]

Would it have made more sense if they said we enjoyed it so much we booked hunts with this outfitter for the next ten years???